Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:19:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Hudson <mwh AT python DOT net>
To: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
cc: Cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <david_abrahams AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Subject: Re: dll_list::load_after_fork() blues (was Re: [ python-Bugs-489709
 ] Building Fails ...)
In-Reply-To: <20011210074629.B2148@dothill.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112101516090.786-100000@starship.python.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jason Tishler wrote:

> Unfortunately, when I run the complete Python regression test, I still
> get the same three test failures as reported by Michael without rebasing:
> 
>     test_popen2
>     test_pty
>     test_socket
> 
> When I run these tests individually (i.e., not part of the complete test
> suite), then they pass.  Hence, the rebasing appears not to completely
> solve this problem.

FWIW, and I don't know how much that is, all tests pass if I link _socket 
statically.  Oh, and this is building without threads, it seems.  I'll do 
a new build with threads and see if anything changes, but I doubt it.

So what is it that dynamically loading _socket does that screws fork()?

Cheers,
M.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/